Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@spendius,

Quote:

Have you any sources for Darwin's performance on the magistrate's bench? Everybody seems strangely silent on the matter despite the records that must exist.

Youd have to go over to the Courthouse in Bromley where he was a part-time magistrate. As I understand it (from reading Milners work on Darwins escapades as a Ghostbuster and a Magistrate), there are a few records left from his tenure on the bench, mostly domestic disputes , brawls and occasional speeding tickets (most of the Bromley records were cached elsewhere and the caches were apparently destroyed during the blitz

I know more about his work as a "Ghostbuster" that grew from a minor disdain for Wallace who became a noted spiritualist . Houdini got some of his pointers from Darwins methods in lowering the boom on spiritualism near Down House. (he didn't travel afar to "guest host" any Ghostbuster forays)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Right. Thanks.

Darwin, according to D&M, told William Graham, whose book The Creed of Science he had read and approved of--"You have expressed my inward conviction . . . that the Universe is not the result of chance".

Which leaves ID. Not the casino. According to Darwin of course.

But using Darwin to support the casino view is rather an indulgence. He was with Herald.

D&M add next--"But even on this a 'horrid doubt' crept back in, as it always did. What value any such belief if the mind has evolved? 'Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions' in it? The issue was insoluble, and there he took his stand." (Page 653).

Hence the social consequences of truth or faith is the only subject of interest as I have been telling you for 10 years.

When members put me on Ignore for forcing them to face that choice it is cheating. It simply means they are not up for defending truth and the consequences of abolishing faith. That they are playing with our minds for banal personal reasons.

A chairman of an orderly adult discussion would require them to leave. A discussion cannot take place when participants in it are unable to even listen to some of the others and demand that they are censored despite them representing the view of a large majority,

1 Reply

@spendius,

"Not by chance" does not default to ID, no matter what you wish to believe.
ID is but one of three options, each non-stochastic..

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I don't understand that. They look like assertions to me.

Will you explain?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Im beginning to worry about your comprehension skills ...

... you are beginning to worry about my semantics ... and I am worrying about your spelling, but this doesn't matter. Your friendship with Set gradually says its word ... with the time. When you have no serious arguments you are 'taking out of the sleeve' some red herring and ad hominem hog-wash or s.th.

further wrote:

DArwin was a master of "ARTIFICIAL SELECTION" ... Darwin was able to conclude on the mechanisms(and three LAWS) of NATURAL SELECTION.

I confess that I am not reading ... but perhaps you are reading too much.
We are not talking here about natural and artificial selection. The point (that you had obviously missed) was that ID has at least evidences that it is possible ... and the evolution does not have any serious indisputable and verifiable piece of evidence that it is possible. In the verification and validation tests the evolution is missing feasibility ... if you can understand at all what does it mean.
Besides that the fact that we are cousins of the Varan de Komodo for example does not necessarily prove that we have common ancestors ... for we may share common intelligent designer, we may share common biological design specifications ... it is not necessarily evolution. How did you come to know that it is either evolution or nothing else?
Evolution is simply one plausible explanation of the things ... and besides plausibility it does not have any other serious verification characteristics ... like feasibility, for example.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

When members put me on Ignore for forcing them to face that choice it is cheating. It simply means they are not up for defending truth and the consequences of abolishing faith. That they are playing with our minds for banal personal reasons.

A chairman of an orderly adult discussion would require them to leave. A discussion cannot take place when participants in it are unable to even listen to some of the others and demand that they are censored despite them representing the view of a large majority,

Gee, Farmer the "academic" ignored the above. Whodda thunk it possible from the perfesser?

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

evolution does not have any serious indisputable and verifiable piece of evidence that it is possible.

you shoul talk. ID HAS NO evidence. Its a word game, its an "if this than that" game. It smerely a group of Christians who wish the world to believe what they do and they get pissed when other people reject their beliefs>

Quote:

and I am worrying about your spelling,

Why don't you pray for me and we will see if it improves.

Quote:

I confess that I am not reading ... but perhaps you are reading too much.

YAAAH liebschen. Zat may be Zo. Perhaps VE SHOULD BURN ALL ZE BUCHS ZAT YOU DONT APPROOF OF.

Quote:

When you have no serious arguments you are 'taking out of the sleeve' some red herring .

ALL my arguments are as serious a a heart attack.Its just that you aren't able to comprehend them. Too BAD

Quote:

we may share common intelligent designer, we may share common biological design specifications ... it is not necessarily evolution

You could be right. Maybe we should just step back and call it shared common descent.

Quote:

besides plausibility it does not have any other serious verification characteristics ... like feasibility, for example.

Would sharing 97% of another animals DNA and having a fused chromosome out of two of its own be a demo of "feasible"?.
I can only go where the compelling argumemts lie. Evolution (OH WAIT - we will call it shared common descent). I see masses of fossils of intermediate forms, I see genetic information that develops real cladistics relationships an I know from paleo, that human rose well after the initial anthropoid apes and we have had several "cousins of Homo' whove livd and gone extinct.
ALL I SEE from the IDers is "Life is too complex to have risen by natural means"
That's so lame it doesn't even deserve a mild pat on the back. ITS intellectual laziness and defaulting to something that doesn't require ANY brains to accept. In fact its the antithesis of intellectual exercise .

s for set, Id like to be his friend but he has higher standards. Theres really only one person in this whole herd of folks that I wouldn't want as any kind of "friend" and that's a nut job who shall remain anonymous.
I think youd be marvelous as a friend. Wed never get along in discussions, Youd be trying to convert me and Id be trying to educate you. What aging we could have at a hockey game.

Quote:

I confess that I am not reading ... but perhaps you are reading too much.

Yah, perhaps liebschen Ve shoult BURN all BUCHS.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Burning books, fm, is putting them on Ignore. A2k's Ignore is a similar exercise for the powerless. Give A2K Ignorers power and they will burn a lot of books. They are the very stuff from which book burners are made. It must really piss them off that they can't burn books. One idiot burning a book caused a diplomatic furore.

You are very keen to respond to Herald aren't you?

The only hope we would have if an elite of scientific methodologists took power is that they would not behave like scientific methodologists for long.

Did you ever see the Cadbury's SMASH ad. (Granules in a plastic bag over which her indoors pours boiling water from an electric kettle, which is a device, as you possibly don't know, to prepare boiling water without having to gather fuel in the surrounding area. )

A bunch of alien scientists were listening to a report from a flying saucer mission on how they make mashed potatoes on planet Earth. And they all laughed. As well they might. Would they laugh though after they had tried some proper mashed potatoes from Earth after years of Cadbury's SMASH?

Well--no they wouldn't--because they are aliens and have not developed a taste for mashed potatoes. The elite of scientific methodology will not have such an immunity.

I suppose, if history is a lesson, they will start with Shamanism. They won't come on TV warning us of weather events. They will come on doing rain dance type things. Whilst keeping secret the scientific method behind their predictions.

They sure would have us on the hop. Does evolution know an organism which refrained from hopping when it got the chance to? Does a Venus fly-trap ever let a straying insect off once in a while?

You're a babe-in-arms Sir.

2 Replies

@spendius,

some days you know of what you speak. Today aint one of em.

Quote:

they will start with Shamanism.

I will start with Shananaism

1 Reply

@farmerman,

And you do not know that fiction writers, the good ones I mean, were, and are, the cleverest, most observant little fuckers on God's little earth.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

some days you know of what you speak. Today aint one of em.

There you go. You can't even read a simple parable and then put the blame on me.

0 Replies

@spendius,

PS--Re Cadbury's SMASH post.

I got it wrong--they would still laugh.

0 Replies

I can make Smash just about eatable by frying some onions and mixing them into it with plenty of salt

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

That's tame Romeo. The Geordie version of Morecambe and Wise on I'm a Celebrity can make pregnant earwigs eatable just by being on TV.

Assuming there is no sleight of edit cuts going on I mean.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

ID HAS NO evidence.

It has and even how. I don't know what your definition of ID is (if you have any at all), but suppose it is the generally accepted one:
Df. of ID: Intelligent Agents + Complex & Specified Information + Irreducible Complexity
... and you are the missing ID evidence, and I can prove that.

1. Do Intelligent Agents exist:
You deny that the other Intelligent Agents (ILFs or God, or the Mind of God - the string theory, or whatever) exist ... but you cannot deny your own personal existence ... as a carrier of intelligence.
As you claim that the universe is driven by a box of rocks ... in a casino, can you show an example for a box of rocks to organize lab settings and test assignments ... and to perform lab experiments in a deserted lab ... let alone to execute double evolution ... throughout the whole universe & on autopilot?

2. Does your body rely on complex and specified information:
- Does it use any encoded info for the nucleotide sequences in the chromosomes to shape you what you actually are?
- Do your cells and tissues have encoded info for recovery & regeneration ... (unless you impede them with some medications, applied in industrial quantities)?
- Can you be able to process information at all if you are not at a higher level of information organization?

3. Are you personally irreducibly complex:
- How far can you go without heart & brain function? - 3-5 min
- How far will lungs deficiency (drowning for example) let you go? - 5-8 min
- How far will you go without liver ... in less that 24 h you will be decomposed into the Periodic Table of the Chemical Elements.
- How far can you survive without blood pressure (blood pressure too low) - 1 -2 h utmost
- How far will you survive without lymph function - sure & slow death ... time unknown, etc.

Hence you are intelligent agent made by some higher level of intelligence, you are based ... and continuously rely on CSI, and as you obviously are irreducibly complex
:- ergo & for that reason you personally are evidence No.1 for the Intelligent Design of the human.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

1. Do Intelligent Agents exist:

Wheres your evidence besides some loose assertions?? In other words NAME SOME!

Quote:

2. Does your body rely on complex and specified information

And we, like lower animals, have the same organs, functions and chemical processes.
AGAIN, see above

Quote:

3. Are you personally irreducibly complex:

This argument has been posed and debunked."Irreducible complexity" has been tried to trace back to some unique complex chemical or biological component (like blood clotting for example). In every case , so far, microbiologists have been able to trace the reaction or function back to a simpler life form, as if evolution were not making blind leaps of "chance" as you say.

That's not intelligence, its a series of chemical reactions in organs that have developed over eons.

BTW, does your "intelligent agent" create organisms by special creation every time we see a new species appear in prehistory or does it use a kind of shared descendency among all available organisms?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Wheres your evidence besides some loose assertions?? In other words NAME SOME!

The human immune system for example and its functionalities from a computational viewpoint are studied and used as model for intelligent agents. For further details see: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2FBFb0097896

further wrote:

And we, like lower animals, have the same organs, functions and chemical processes.

So what? The animals have also CSI and hence they may also be subject of ID. This 'AGAIN, see above' here is irrelevant for you are confirming my thesis, not rejecting it.

further wrote:

This argument has been posed and debunked."Irreducible complexity" has been tried to trace back to some unique complex chemical or biological component (like blood clotting for example).

Irreducible complexity is not 'tracing back'. It means that the system cannot function if it is simplified. Besides that 'tracing back' does not prove evolution. All in all it proves is common origin, common circumstances of developing, common impact ... which is not necessarily evolution.

further wrote:

That's not intelligence, its a series of chemical reactions in organs that have developed over eons.

Where are the evidences to this claim?

further wrote:

... every time we see a new species appear in prehistory ...

You are talking about the new species as if it is something like a pair of new shoes, as if you know everything about it.
You don't know what is conscience, what our intelligence is ... and how far it goes in our body, but talk with ease about 'polymers' and 'chemical reactions' ... forgetting to mention that the chemical reactions in the liver for example are organized on the spot, by the tissues involved there and are not a result of stochastic processes of the omnipresent big bang ... and that if the tissues where simply a box of rocks they would not have been able to organize autonomously the said processing.
By presenting the human body as a set of cells you not only oversimplify the living matter, but present your oversimplified understanding of the world as something based on something objectively existing ... without any verifiable evidences.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Herald wrote--

Quote:

Irreducible complexity is not 'tracing back'. It means that the system cannot function if it is simplified.

Which is why the comparison at Dover of a flagells with a mechanical pump was so utterly ridiculous and profoundly unscientific.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Irreducible complexity is not 'tracing back'. It means that the system cannot function if it is simplified.

Your wrong again.
"tracing back to a simpler base of the same processes" is actually the way that irreducible complexity is defined by your ID buds.If a dolphin accomplishes blood clotting by a series of '"cascading" enzymes that are distributed in an order of 26 sequential chemical steps, That's what the IDers have been calling an irreducible complexity. Its critical to the dolphin that these enzymes

Molecular biologists have shown that a similar sequence of blood clotting is seen in the lower animals (namely crabs and lobsters), and their blood clotting is accomplished by 24 of the above 26 enzymes.
That's debunking irreducible complexity. The emzymatic cascade has gone farther in simplicity as animals circulatory systems were simpler still.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I don't have any "ID buds" fm. What on earth are you talking about. They are heretics. Every last one of them. It's a business proposition which is bound to meet with your approval.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know